"It's time Christians started including Latter-day Saints"


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores
On 7/26/2019 at 7:45 PM, prisonchaplain said:

There are apostate LDS groups that still use the name Mormon. They could point out all the commonalities, but at the end of the day you follow different hierarchies and ordinances.

Yes, there is no question there are differences.  But is it enough to pull the gatekeeping card?

One problem is that there is no ownership of the term "Christian".  Can you say you have ownership of it?  We certainly don't claim such.  

Without such ownership, it turns into a cultural word like any other word in the dictionary.  It is arrived at by cultural consensus.

While "Latter-day Saint" is owned by the Church, I'm not so certain about "Mormon".

To address both "Christian" and "Mormon", I'd like to invoke newly coined political terms: alt-right and alt-left.

No self respecting right winger wants to be associated with alt-right, any more than the left winger wants to be associated with alt-left.  Yet alt still means a part of and associated with.

We readily admit, we're not "mainstream".  But we're still Christians.

On 7/26/2019 at 7:45 PM, prisonchaplain said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

(To state the beyond obvious, you're not remotely numbered among the above people, @prisonchaplain.  It's just what that argument makes me flash too PTSD style, having seen it SO twisted so badly.  )

LOL, when I first read this I thought it meant, "you're not remotely numbered among the above people, you're right there in the dead center of them."  This is why I back up and read things several times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Too much talk. Build Thunderdome and settle this. 

I used to joke that we should abolish campaigns and elections for U.S. President and replace everything with mud-wrestling competitions.  But that might actually be an improvement over what's shaping up for 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mores said:

Yes, there is no question there are differences.  But is it enough to pull the gatekeeping card?

One problem is that there is no ownership of the term "Christian".  Can you say you have ownership of it?  We certainly don't claim such.  

...

To address both "Christian" and "Mormon", I'd like to invoke newly coined political terms: alt-right and alt-left.

No self respecting right winger wants to be associated with alt-right, any more than the left winger wants to be associated with alt-left.  Yet alt still means a part of and associated with.

We readily admit, we're not "mainstream".  But we're still Christians.

 

Gate-keeping, excluding--don't these really just reflect the negative side of definition? When we make a word--especially one that labels a group--by necessity some will not belong. The meaning of the word tells us who fits and who does not. So, who is qualified to define? Catholics would say that scriptures, church tradition, and church hierarchy all have a part. Most Protestants would say that any definition must be rooted in scripture. Beyond that, it really is a "thunderdome" situation: whichever group is attempting a definition will itself be judged as authoritative or not. The "Christian Anti-Cult Squad" (all 8 members!) would have very little sway outside the three families that belong. The Catholic Church and the various large, multi-denominational associations more so. And again, my caveat that those outside any authority's definition always reserve the right to say, "You are wrong and we are right."

On the whole alt-right and alt-left, whatever I might call you it won't be "alt-Christian." Just can't go there. :-)

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Beyond that, it really is a "thunderdome" situation:

So, for the first round, we start with prisonchaplain vs... <looks at FP and Q12>  ...guess it really doesn't matter much; either God really is on their side or even the Pope wouldn't have too much trouble taking them on one at a time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2019 at 1:51 AM, prisonchaplain said:

Those certain Evangelicals are probably not...they are Fundamentalists. Most Evangelicals accept that most (or at least many) Catholics will make heaven.

"Mason Boyne on the march once again! Mason Boyne with his bold Orangemen! With a shake of the hand and a kick in the groin, Mason Boyne, Mason Boyne, Mason Boyne!"

(Did you ever imagine Hagrid as an anti-Papist?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Gate-keeping, excluding--don't these really just reflect the negative side of definition? When we make a word--especially one that labels a group--by necessity some will not belong. The meaning of the word tells us who fits and who does not.

I'm aware.  When I use the term "gate-keeping" it is referring to the attitude of finding an EXCUSE to exclude rather than stay true to what would be considered a "reasonable definition."  More on that later. But first:

16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

So, who is qualified to define? Catholics would say that scriptures, church tradition, and church hierarchy all have a part. Most Protestants would say that any definition must be rooted in scripture. Beyond that, it really is a "thunderdome" situation: whichever group is attempting a definition will itself be judged as authoritative or not. The "Christian Anti-Cult Squad" (all 8 members!) would have very little sway outside the three families that belong. The Catholic Church and the various large, multi-denominational associations more so. And again, my caveat that those outside any authority's definition always reserve the right to say, "You are wrong and we are right."

What you're really saying is that it is just a big semantic game.  I can't really argue with you there.  It is.  But that's not ALL there is.  If there is sincerity and consistency in the definitions any group makes, then I have no problem with it.  We simply have different definitions.  That's fine.  Language is filled with examples like that.

But when I hear the definitions given by others (specifically many evangelicals) and then observe how they speak of various denominations, I find a tremendous incongruity when I compare their definitions to the beliefs of the various denominations they include and exclude.  IOW, where is the consistency?  Without the consistency, I have trouble believing in the sincerity of the definition.

In addition, if it were simply the idea that we have different definitions, then the tolerance from the other side is also in order.  IOW, if I acknowledge the idea that,"Yes, according to your definition, we're not Christians."  then, it is only fair that an evangelical can acknowledge that an LDS definition is also an "acceptable alternative definition."  But I find that it is next to impossible to get such a concession.  So, the idea that it is a semantic argument is weak.

16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

On the whole alt-right and alt-left, whatever I might call you it won't be "alt-Christian." Just can't go there. 🙂

For the record, I was not suggesting the use of the term "alt-Christian".  I believe you understood that (given your smiley face).  But to be clear, I was only using that as an analogy and a possible compromise.  You can still include us and exclude us at the same time with such terminology as "non-mainstream Christian" rather than "non-Christian".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own little committee-of-one conclusion on the matter: gate-keeping is becoming less of a thing for most Christians. Our most conservative (such an imprecise word!) factions continue to employ with glee, but most could care less. You hear it here too--the weariness, the deep sighing...do we really need another "who's a real Christian" string?

And yet . . . we all want to be respected. Ironically, my restorationist movement went through some of the same phases. Our first-generation Pentecostal pioneers were arrested (practicing medicine without a license), pelted with fruit and rotten eggs, tarred and feathered, etc. (colorful, but your history is more so). Our second generation wore the 'suffering for Jesus' chip on shoulder, with lots of gate-keeping rules to show that we were truly holier than thou. Then we had our offshoots (mainly Oneness Pentecostals), who adopted some heretical views, yet appeared more Pentecostal than we. Ultimately, we sought and gained respectability by joining the NAE and building up accredited universities and seminaries.

The solution I like is exemplified in sites like thirdhour.org. It's seen in the 'convicted conversations' LDS professors are having with Evangelical ones. Most effectively, it's found in the respectful friendships that LDS build with non-members.

Maybe the better battle would be to fight to be considered "Christ-like" rather than Christian. If someone calls me Christ-like, but does not consider me Christian, It would probably go like this:

"I gotta admit, you are the most Christ-like person I know. Sorry, your beliefs keep me from calling you Christian, but you're still cool by me."  Maybe that's good enough.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I care if mainstream Christians start including us or not.  Obviously it would be nice from a cooperative community standpoint (especially in light of the modern persecution of Christians), but similar to @Vort's point, if a more traditional Christian is in a position where they think they should tell me I'm not Christian, then I can just tell them that they aren't Christian right back.  Without confirmation by the Holy Spirit, they are meaningless words (although they will be far more confused by my declaration than I would by theirs).  I think it would be most beneficial to be more concerned about people having a completely false understanding about the Restored Gospel, or various aspects of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, person0 said:

I think it would be most beneficial to be more concerned about people having a completely false understanding about the Restored Gospel, or various aspects of it.

In other discussions I have seen around this question, this has been suggested as one reason why we should argue for our inclusion under the Christian umbrella. Sometimes, the whole "I'm not a Mormon" campaign is framed as "if someone thinks I'm Mormon, they will assume I worship Mormon and not God and Christ."

Which leads to ask the question this way. You have a new employee show up to work, and you are told that he/she is not a Christian. Knowing nothing else, what sort of assumptions about his/her religious beliefs do you make? I kind of doubt that among the early assumptions or questions would be, "I wonder if they just have a different view of the Trinity."

C S Lewis made the point that being Christian should mean something concrete. Does the inverse discussion (what does it mean to be non-Christian) question add anything to the discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

You have a new employee show up to work, and you are told that he/she is not a Christian. Knowing nothing else, what sort of assumptions about his/her religious beliefs do you make?

I'm tempted to use the universal answer: it depends.  A person who grew up outside Christendom and is comfortable with his/her birth religion is quite different from a person who grew up in a nonreligious home, and both are very different from an antitheist who was once Christian but now denies all religions with the fire and brimstone of Christopher Hitchens.

But that's not my final answer.  In 2019 in the United States, the only assumption I'd make is that I should not assume anything until I know the facts and particulars.  These days I don't assume people's ethnic origins, their nationality, or even their gender in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me... for the debate on who should be called Christian...   I tend toward saying I once heard... "Would there be enough evidence to convict you?"  This tends to down play doctrine and dogma in favor of behavior and actions.

Or as Nephi said,  "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."  That to me is what it means to be Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
21 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

My own little committee-of-one conclusion on the matter: gate-keeping is becoming less of a thing for most Christians. Our most conservative (such an imprecise word!) factions continue to employ with glee, but most could care less. You hear it here too--the weariness, the deep sighing...do we really need another "who's a real Christian" string?

Well, I'd be interested in knowing (I realize this is only tangentially related to the topic) what the argument would be to say that evangelical Christians can claim "ownership" of the term "Christian" to the point where they can authoritatively define what a Christian is?

Catholics claim historical authority.  Latter-day Saints claim divine restoration of authority.  What do evangelicals claim?  The Bible can be interpreted 12 ways till Sunday.  "Going by the Bible" doesn't really hold water.  So, what is the claim?  

I'm not saying this with a challenging tone.  I'm asking in all sincerity:  By what right do you claim ownership of the title to the point where your definition should reign over alternative definitions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

This tends to down play doctrine and dogma in favor of behavior and actions.

Which, I think, brings up a Mormon bias that is not necessarily shared by the rest of Christendom. It has frequently been said that Latter-day Saints much prefer orthopraxy over orthodoxy. The C S Lewis portion of this discussion is strongly focused on orthodoxy. "Elder" Lewis even goes so far as to say that behavior maybe should not even define what it means to be Christian. Lewis seems to argue that it is the belief system that makes you Christian or not. Your behavior may make you a "bad" or a "good" Christian, but it is the belief system that determines if you fit under the Christian umbrella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Which, I think, brings up a Mormon bias that is not necessarily shared by the rest of Christendom. It has frequently been said that Latter-day Saints much prefer orthopraxy over orthodoxy. The C S Lewis portion of this discussion is strongly focused on orthodoxy. "Elder" Lewis even goes so far as to say that behavior maybe should not even define what it means to be Christian. Lewis seems to argue that it is the belief system that makes you Christian or not. Your behavior may make you a "bad" or a "good" Christian, but it is the belief system that determines if you fit under the Christian umbrella.

What part of " And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. "  Fails the belief umbrella?   The fact that you had to clip it out to make your point means you knew your point was not valid in context of what I said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nephi's quote leaves all kinds of room for unorthodox belief. Do I have to belief that Christ is embodied to look to Him for a remission of sins? Do I have to believe that Christ was God incarnate to look to Him for a remission of sins? Can I believe that Christ is not a part of the Godhead/Trinity and still look to Him for a remission of sins?

If being Christian is about believing that Christ is the source from which I receive a remission of sins (and I don't think it is a bad definition, myself), then I can believe a lot of other non-orthodox and even heretical or apostate things about Christ and still look to Him for a remission of my sins. Lewis and the rest of Christendom seem to be arguing that there is a lot more to being Christian than just believing that Christ is the atoning source for sin.

It's still the same semantic debate -- exactly what does it mean to be a Christian? We cannot seem to come to an agreement that satisfies all of Christendom, and so we incessantly debate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

You have a new employee show up to work, and you are told that he/she is not a Christian.

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario when this would happen.  When people ask me what my religion is, I tell them I am Christian, because I am.  If they ask me where I attend church I tell them that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  If someone wants to get into the intricacies of why they believe I'm not a Christian, I could care less, and would refer back to my original position, except where there is honest inquiry into our faith.  If someone wants to sincerely inquire about my beliefs I will be absolutely ecstatic to share what I believe and why.  For those who would prefer to argue concepts like the Trinity, or mainstream/traditional Christianity as a rational basis for excluding members of the Church: historicity does not equal validity.  The value of the title, Christian, is found primarily in the mainstream use of the word, which I understand is kind of the point of this thread, but for mainstream Christians to accept us as 'one of them' is nearly impossible due to the cognitive dissonance in the fact that protestant Christian groups embrace one another as being part of a grater whole, and yet we exclude them as being part of that whole.  Lutheran's, Methodist's, and Baptists are equal in their lack of singular validity as the One True Church; similarly many Christian groups exclude Catholics.  The next best thing to true inclusion might be to say something like, 'They are Christians in that they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, but overall, their version of Christianity is false.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, person0 said:

The next best thing to true inclusion might be to say something like, 'They are Christians in that they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, but overall, their version of Christianity is false.'

I would agree with you, but this debate is not just about who is a "good" or "bad" or "heretical" or "apostate" or "unorthodox" Christian. Those are all types of Christians that we have judged fit under the umbrella of "Christian". I have seen others argue (is Pastor Christie from the OP arguing this?) that Mormons should easily fit under the Christian umbrella, but they must also be subclassified as heretical or unorthodox. Personally, I kind of like the idea of being labeled a heretical Christian, because I think that is the most accurate. I feel like I believe enough of the things that should define a Christian to fit under the umbrella, but there is no question in my mind that some of my beliefs are unorthodox or even heretical or apostate (from the point of view of mainstream Christianity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I feel like I believe enough of the things that should define a Christian to fit under the umbrella, but there is no question in my mind that some of my beliefs are unorthodox or even heretical or apostate (from the point of view of mainstream Christianity).

I agree with this.  With such a designation, we would be equally classified in the same way that we classify others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a devout, honest, good-hearted Muslim who faithfully practices his religion and seeks to honor God by giving to the poor, praying, fasting, and otherwise living his beliefs more "Christian" than the typical American who calls himself a Christian but neither attends church nor particularly makes much effort to live or even to understand the beliefs he professes? I would say no; the professed Muslim, despite his close adherence to what we would consider "Christian" values, is not "more Christian" than the guy who calls himself a Christian but doesn't walk the walk. Perhaps this is orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy; I'm not sure. But when one man explicitly says, "I'm not a Christian" and another man proclaims, "I am a Christian," I am much more likely to recognize the second man as the Christian, regardless of my personal judgments about performance or ethics.

Which I suppose is another way of saying that whether or not you're "Christian" isn't very relevant unless you actually understand and attempt to live by the foundational precepts of Christianity. I'm thinking that whether So-and-so "is Christian" in my view, or whether s/he sees me as Christian, isn't very important. Clearly, in LDS belief, being "Christian" becomes very important at some stage of your journey. But ecumenical arguments about who qualifies as "Christian" and whether that includes me or us or them strike me as mostly a waste of time.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Vort said:

But ecumenical arguments about who qualifies as "Christian" and whether that includes me or us or them strike me as mostly a waste of time.

It's a waste of time for all parities involved. I think most Christians, especially down here, aren't exactly rolling out the red carpets begging for "unity" between the LDS church and their churches. You (generic) don't care what they think, and they generally don't care what we think either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

What part of " And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. "  Fails the belief umbrella?   The fact that you had to clip it out to make your point means you knew your point was not valid in context of what I said.

You're talking to the guy who came to an LDS board, claims to be LDS, and declared that "faith in Christ" is not required for exaltation.  I don't know what world he comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Is a devout, honest, good-hearted Muslim who faithfully practices his religion and seeks to honor God by giving to the poor, praying, fasting, and otherwise living his beliefs more "Christian" than the typical American who calls himself a Christian but neither attends church nor particularly makes much effort to live or even to understand the beliefs he professes? I would say no; the professed Muslim, despite his close adherence to what we would consider "Christian" values, is not "more Christian" than the guy who calls himself a Christian but doesn't walk the walk. Perhaps this is orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy; I'm not sure. But when one man explicitly says, "I'm not a Christian" and another man proclaims, "I am a Christian," I am much more likely to recognize the second man as the Christian, regardless of my personal judgments about performance or ethics.

Which I suppose is another way of saying that whether or not you're "Christian" isn't very relevant unless you actually understand and attempt to live by the foundational precepts of Christianity. I'm thinking that whether So-and-so "is Christian" in my view, or whether s/he sees me as Christian, isn't very important. Clearly, in LDS belief, being "Christian" becomes very important at some stage of your journey. But ecumenical arguments about who qualifies as "Christian" and whether that includes me or us or them strike me as mostly a waste of time.

Here's a funny thing... Christians like to claim Ghandi was a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share